Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> writes: > * On 2017-10-11 at 01:34 BST, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> Or to fail hard if c++11 is in USE_LANGUAGES and < 5.1? > > Not < 5.1, I've been very happily using 4.9 for our SmartOS builds for > a long time with no obvious issues, and this would screw me over. I don't have any problem with considering 4.9 good enough, with the notion that packages with C++11 that don't work with 4.9 will have GCC_REQD=5.1, and thus fail non-mysteriously. > However, I think I'm of the opinion that we should just fail hard if > an insufficient compiler is detected. If compiler/gcc.mk has taught > me anything it's that it is vastly over-complicated and a nightmare to > maintain. Adding another layer of complexity and magic on top is just > going to make things worse. I think pretty much everyone is coming around to that view and we are now debating what the defaults should be. Does anybody disagree? > I'd prefer we simply abort, tell the user to choose a decent compiler > for all C++ packages, then let them sort things out based on those > requirements and any local preferences they may have. Agreed - that is basically what my recent complicated note intends.
Description: PGP signature